Claimant v Ave Maria Care Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant succeeded in relation to removal of RS appointments, removal of SM appointments, removal of shift on 15 March 2023, and failure to pay for antenatal appointments. The Tribunal found these were done on grounds prescribed by s.47C ERA 1996, namely pregnancy. Failed on other allegations including not being permitted to return to work on 27 December 2022 (found to be due to respondent's general lack of responsiveness rather than pregnancy), ceasing to offer hours on 17/20 March 2023 (claimant was offered hours at Sutton branch), and issues with SSP and maternity pay breakdown (attributed to finance team error).
Claimant succeeded in relation to removal of SM appointments (witness evidence showed Mr Ahmed told client's mother it was because standing at sink was not good for pregnant woman), removal of shift on 15 March 2023 (followed pregnancy-related illness notification), and failure to pay for antenatal appointments on 27 February and 24 April 2023 (materially influenced by pregnancy). Failed on other allegations including move to Sutton branch (found to be reasonable health and safety measure under Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999), and finance issues (no facts to shift burden of proof).
Tribunal found claimant was not dismissed; she was offered hours at Sutton branch and therefore employment continued albeit on zero hours basis.
Tribunal found most communications relied upon were not protected acts as they did not contain allegations of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Only email of 4 May 2023 constituted a protected act. Acts complained of either pre-dated the protected act or, in relation to SSP and maternity pay breakdown, there was no evidence finance team had knowledge of protected act or that it had any influence on treatment.
Claimant not paid for antenatal appointments on 27 February 2023 (afternoon) and 24 April 2023 (during sick leave), and not paid correct amount of statutory sick pay from 24 March to 31 May 2023. These were sums properly payable to her as an employee entitled to paid time off for antenatal care and statutory sick pay.
Facts
Claimant was a zero-hours care assistant who returned to respondent in September 2022 having previously worked there 2020-2022. She notified respondent of pregnancy on 21 November 2022. Between December 2022 and March 2023, certain regular client appointments (RS and SM) were removed from her rota, and on 15 March 2023 she was removed from a shift. She was not paid for antenatal appointments. Respondent's key witness (Care Co-ordinator Mr Ahmed) was absent due to sickness. Tribunal found issues with authenticity of respondent's documentation including copied signatures.
Decision
Tribunal found claimant was an employee, not a worker. Pregnancy discrimination and s.47C detriment claims partly succeeded in relation to removal of SM appointments (witness evidence showed pregnancy was explicit reason), removal of 15 March shift (followed pregnancy-related absence), and non-payment for antenatal appointments. Also succeeded on removal of RS appointments as detriment. Unauthorised deductions claim succeeded. Unfair dismissal failed as employment continued. Victimisation failed as most communications were not protected acts. Separate remedy hearing listed.
Practical note
Where a respondent fails to call a key witness who would have direct knowledge of alleged discriminatory decisions, and provides unreliable documentation, a tribunal will draw inferences and may find discrimination proved even without direct evidence of discriminatory motive, particularly where protected characteristic is mentioned in contemporaneous communications with third parties.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1305589/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- care assistant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor